NESTLE PHILS VS SANCHEZ

DOCTRINE:
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
official, tribunal or legislative body.

Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and
the principles of fairness.

FACTS:
Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism, and
Nationalism-Olalia intensified their intermittent pickets they had been conducting since June
1987 where they already set up pickets’ quarters in front of the Supreme court denying access
and egress from the Courts premises and haranguing the court all day long with loud speakers.
These acts were done even after their leader had been received by Justices Pedro L. Yap and
Marcelo B. Fernan as Chairmen of the Divisions where their cases are pending. Atty. Jose C.
Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees had been called to informed the pickets to
cease immediately for it constitutes contempt and the Court will not entertain their petitions for
as long as the pickets are maintained. The Union were given a resolution to withdraw graciously
and requiring Messengers Avelino, et. Al, union leaders of the Union of Filipro employees in the
Nestle case and their counsel Atty. Espinas, and Messengers Facundo et. Al union leaders of
KILUSAN-Olalia in the Kimberly case to appear before the court to SHOW CAUSE as why they
should not be held in contempt of court and Atty. Espinas to SHOW CAUSE why he should not
administratively dealt with.
On the appointed date and time, the above-named individuals appeared before the court
represented by Atty. Espinas. Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders
concerned, apologized to the Court for the above - described acts, together with an assurance
that they will not be repeated. He likewise manifested to the Court that he had explained to the
picketers why their actions were wrong and that the cited persons were willing to suffer such
penalty as may be warranted under the circumstances. He prayed for the court’s leniency as the
picket was actually spearheaded by “ Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Timog Katagalugan”
(PAMANTIK), an unregistered loose alliance and not by either of the two unions he was
representing. He further explained to the picketers that the delay in the resolution of their cases
is usually beyong the control of the Court and they the Court has remain steadfast in its role as
the guardian of the Constitution. The Court required the respondents to submit a written
manifestation to which the respondents complied.
ISSUE: WON the presence of pickets, demonstrations, and other external pressures may
influence the courts of justice with regards to the cases?

RULING:
No. The courts of justice shall maintain independence and non-interference of other factors
and external pressures. The actions of the pickets and continuous demonstrations by the union
impeded the Courts entitlement as impartial administrators of justice to proceed to the
disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its
functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice. Grievances, if any, must be
ventilated through the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions or other
pleadings. Atty. Espinas as the counsel of the union and as an officer of the court has the
responsibility to advise his clients on the intricacies of laws and to inform them matters of
decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice.